Relativizing and fusing part of catenative complement?
I just came across the following sentence:
What I wanted to hear was this
It made me wonder how to parse what I wanted to hear. As far as I can figure out (much thanks to this post), this should be an NP, where what is a fusion between the head of the NP and the relativized element of the postmodifying relative clause, comparable to That which I wanted to hear, where the head (that) and the relativized element (which) are non-fused. Is this analysis correct?
Then my next question concerns the identity of the relativized element: is this an object of a catenative complement? That is, am I right in thinking that to hear ___ is a catenative complement of wanted, where the object of hear has been relativized and moved out to fuse with the head of the NP?
grammatical-structure relative-clauses parsing catenative-verbs
asked 2 days ago
HannahHannah
1058
|
show 1 more comment
I just came across the following sentence:
What I wanted to hear was this
It made me wonder how to parse what I wanted to hear. As far as I can figure out (much thanks to this post), this should be an NP, where what is a fusion between the head of the NP and the relativized element of the postmodifying relative clause, comparable to That which I wanted to hear, where the head (that) and the relativized element (which) are non-fused. Is this analysis correct?
Then my next question concerns the identity of the relativized element: is this an object of a catenative complement? That is, am I right in thinking that to hear ___ is a catenative complement of wanted, where the object of hear has been relativized and moved out to fuse with the head of the NP?
grammatical-structure relative-clauses parsing catenative-verbs
asked 2 days ago
HannahHannah
1058
1
Yes, your analysis is right. "What I wanted to hear" is a fused relative construction". "What" is head of the NP and object of "hear" in the relative clause.
– BillJ
2 days ago
@BillJ Thanks! Also: would who did it in it was Shona who did it also be a fused relative construction then? Assuming we analyse the cleft as an extraposition, where who did it is an extraposed subject?
– Hannah
2 days ago
No, it's not a fused relative. The relativised element and the antecedent are not fused as they are in a fused relative construction, but expressed separately, i.e. as "who" and "Shona". . The relative clause "who did it" is postnucleus.
– BillJ
2 days ago
@BillJ Yes, I understand that analysis if we see the relative clause as part of an NP Shona who did it But I was thinking of an analysis where we see who did it as an extraposed subject – hence not forming a constituent with Shona in the first place. Wouldn't that be a possible analysis?
– Hannah
2 days ago
But it's not part of the NP. As I said, the relative clause is a postnucleus, not a dependent of "Shona". Clefts are not a kind of extraposed construction.
– BillJ
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
I just came across the following sentence:
What I wanted to hear was this
It made me wonder how to parse what I wanted to hear. As far as I can figure out (much thanks to this post), this should be an NP, where what is a fusion between the head of the NP and the relativized element of the postmodifying relative clause, comparable to That which I wanted to hear, where the head (that) and the relativized element (which) are non-fused. Is this analysis correct?
Then my next question concerns the identity of the relativized element: is this an object of a catenative complement? That is, am I right in thinking that to hear ___ is a catenative complement of wanted, where the object of hear has been relativized and moved out to fuse with the head of the NP?
grammatical-structure relative-clauses parsing catenative-verbs
asked 2 days ago
HannahHannah
1058
I just came across the following sentence:
What I wanted to hear was this
It made me wonder how to parse what I wanted to hear. As far as I can figure out (much thanks to this post), this should be an NP, where what is a fusion between the head of the NP and the relativized element of the postmodifying relative clause, comparable to That which I wanted to hear, where the head (that) and the relativized element (which) are non-fused. Is this analysis correct?
Then my next question concerns the identity of the relativized element: is this an object of a catenative complement? That is, am I right in thinking that to hear ___ is a catenative complement of wanted, where the object of hear has been relativized and moved out to fuse with the head of the NP?
grammatical-structure relative-clauses parsing catenative-verbs
grammatical-structure relative-clauses parsing catenative-verbs
asked 2 days ago
HannahHannah
1058
asked 2 days ago
HannahHannah
1058
asked 2 days ago
HannahHannah
1058
asked 2 days ago
HannahHannah
1058
asked 2 days ago
HannahHannah
1058
1058
1
Yes, your analysis is right. "What I wanted to hear" is a fused relative construction". "What" is head of the NP and object of "hear" in the relative clause.
– BillJ
2 days ago
@BillJ Thanks! Also: would who did it in it was Shona who did it also be a fused relative construction then? Assuming we analyse the cleft as an extraposition, where who did it is an extraposed subject?
– Hannah
2 days ago
No, it's not a fused relative. The relativised element and the antecedent are not fused as they are in a fused relative construction, but expressed separately, i.e. as "who" and "Shona". . The relative clause "who did it" is postnucleus.
– BillJ
2 days ago
@BillJ Yes, I understand that analysis if we see the relative clause as part of an NP Shona who did it But I was thinking of an analysis where we see who did it as an extraposed subject – hence not forming a constituent with Shona in the first place. Wouldn't that be a possible analysis?
– Hannah
2 days ago
But it's not part of the NP. As I said, the relative clause is a postnucleus, not a dependent of "Shona". Clefts are not a kind of extraposed construction.
– BillJ
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
1
Yes, your analysis is right. "What I wanted to hear" is a fused relative construction". "What" is head of the NP and object of "hear" in the relative clause.
– BillJ
2 days ago
@BillJ Thanks! Also: would who did it in it was Shona who did it also be a fused relative construction then? Assuming we analyse the cleft as an extraposition, where who did it is an extraposed subject?
– Hannah
2 days ago
No, it's not a fused relative. The relativised element and the antecedent are not fused as they are in a fused relative construction, but expressed separately, i.e. as "who" and "Shona". . The relative clause "who did it" is postnucleus.
– BillJ
2 days ago
@BillJ Yes, I understand that analysis if we see the relative clause as part of an NP Shona who did it But I was thinking of an analysis where we see who did it as an extraposed subject – hence not forming a constituent with Shona in the first place. Wouldn't that be a possible analysis?
– Hannah
2 days ago
But it's not part of the NP. As I said, the relative clause is a postnucleus, not a dependent of "Shona". Clefts are not a kind of extraposed construction.
– BillJ
2 days ago
1
1
Yes, your analysis is right. "What I wanted to hear" is a fused relative construction". "What" is head of the NP and object of "hear" in the relative clause.
– BillJ
2 days ago
Yes, your analysis is right. "What I wanted to hear" is a fused relative construction". "What" is head of the NP and object of "hear" in the relative clause.
– BillJ
2 days ago
@BillJ Thanks! Also: would who did it in it was Shona who did it also be a fused relative construction then? Assuming we analyse the cleft as an extraposition, where who did it is an extraposed subject?
– Hannah
2 days ago
@BillJ Thanks! Also: would who did it in it was Shona who did it also be a fused relative construction then? Assuming we analyse the cleft as an extraposition, where who did it is an extraposed subject?
– Hannah
2 days ago
No, it's not a fused relative. The relativised element and the antecedent are not fused as they are in a fused relative construction, but expressed separately, i.e. as "who" and "Shona". . The relative clause "who did it" is postnucleus.
– BillJ
2 days ago
No, it's not a fused relative. The relativised element and the antecedent are not fused as they are in a fused relative construction, but expressed separately, i.e. as "who" and "Shona". . The relative clause "who did it" is postnucleus.
– BillJ
2 days ago
@BillJ Yes, I understand that analysis if we see the relative clause as part of an NP Shona who did it But I was thinking of an analysis where we see who did it as an extraposed subject – hence not forming a constituent with Shona in the first place. Wouldn't that be a possible analysis?
– Hannah
2 days ago
@BillJ Yes, I understand that analysis if we see the relative clause as part of an NP Shona who did it But I was thinking of an analysis where we see who did it as an extraposed subject – hence not forming a constituent with Shona in the first place. Wouldn't that be a possible analysis?
– Hannah
2 days ago
But it's not part of the NP. As I said, the relative clause is a postnucleus, not a dependent of "Shona". Clefts are not a kind of extraposed construction.
– BillJ
2 days ago
But it's not part of the NP. As I said, the relative clause is a postnucleus, not a dependent of "Shona". Clefts are not a kind of extraposed construction.
– BillJ
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f481777%2frelativizing-and-fusing-part-of-catenative-complement%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f481777%2frelativizing-and-fusing-part-of-catenative-complement%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Yes, your analysis is right. "What I wanted to hear" is a fused relative construction". "What" is head of the NP and object of "hear" in the relative clause.
– BillJ
2 days ago
@BillJ Thanks! Also: would who did it in it was Shona who did it also be a fused relative construction then? Assuming we analyse the cleft as an extraposition, where who did it is an extraposed subject?
– Hannah
2 days ago
No, it's not a fused relative. The relativised element and the antecedent are not fused as they are in a fused relative construction, but expressed separately, i.e. as "who" and "Shona". . The relative clause "who did it" is postnucleus.
– BillJ
2 days ago
@BillJ Yes, I understand that analysis if we see the relative clause as part of an NP Shona who did it But I was thinking of an analysis where we see who did it as an extraposed subject – hence not forming a constituent with Shona in the first place. Wouldn't that be a possible analysis?
– Hannah
2 days ago
But it's not part of the NP. As I said, the relative clause is a postnucleus, not a dependent of "Shona". Clefts are not a kind of extraposed construction.
– BillJ
2 days ago